I had a suspicion that the circular object was electromagnetic in nature, and not a physical object. I still can't be sure of course, but here is an interesting screen shot from the video clip. The top right object is the original circular object after it has come to rest and the bottom left is what appears on the video clip to be an electrical storm that appears for about 0,5 seconds; look how similar they are.

You can find plenty of doughnut/"spherical" shaped "UFOs", for example here.

Arguing with fool is like playing chess with pigeon: he will scatter pieces, peck King's crown, crap on bishop, and fly away bragging how he won the game... (heard once, author unknown).
Zhoom! What was that? That was your life, Mate! Oh, that was quick. Do I get another? Sorry, Mate. That's your lot. Basil Fawlty (John Cleese).
If yesterday you would have stood up proud. Then why tonight have you thrown in with the stoning crowd? (Cradle of Filth)

Thanks Synch. Your tech served me well. Paint kept crashing so I lost patience and got a copy of Snagit. Works a treat and should be useful here on UM.

I reckon that the larger objects on the clip are storm related phenomena. Don't ask me any more than that because I just don't know, A meteorologist would be useful at this point.

Snagit's awesome when you get into the editor. good choice.
I thought the flashes in the video were lightning. I've seen them before on NASA video's.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question (of Zoser), and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

Edited by Chrlzs, 03 November 2012 - 04:13 AM.

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question, and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

These enlargements are simply common blowup, they are certainly not intended to be of forensic quality. They are simply "snagit" enlargements. They are only an approximation of the original image. The pixelation goes to hell when the enlargements are great.

Edited by synchronomy, 03 November 2012 - 04:18 AM.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

Thanks, Synch. I apologise for initially not clarifying that my question was more directed at Zoser, who seemed to be claiming to have a new-found ability to enlarge the bejeebers out of images...

Thing is, these enlargements are indeed pretty much worthless. Apart from the fact that they clearly *have* used an interpolation technique, which adds in pixels on a rough-guess basis, the image is almost certainly already compromised by the aforementioned issues like compression and sharpening/contrast enhancements, let alone being over- or digital-zoomed, out-of-focus and motion blurred...

Such enlargements are, 'forensically', worse than useless. But (oft times) they can be great for folks who want to find 'detail' they can somehow add to their tantalisation.. And of course if the 'researcher' can then add on a bit of post processing, like additional sharpening, posterising, edge filtration ad infinitum, they can adjust the sliders to get pretty much anything they want...

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:01 AM

Chrlzs, on 03 November 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question (of Zoser), and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

Ah, where is Starchy when you need him?

Sorry Chrlzs, before your time here. He and KS15 were legendary - you would have enjoyed their image "analysis"

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 03 November 2012 - 05:02 AM.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:09 AM

booNyzarC, on 03 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

I don't know Bade, he probably wouldn't have "enjoyed" it much at all... I think they might have caused Chrlzs to pop a blood vessel LOL

I must admit to a little twitching of my own when I reviewed some of their 'content'...

Yeah, well, in that sense it was so ridiculous that it was rather funny, albeit in a sad way... But I could easily see Chrlzs get quite irked

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

Snagit's awesome when you get into the editor. good choice.
I thought the flashes in the video were lightning. I've seen them before on NASA video's.

The flashes obviously are; but because of the way that the large moving object later morphs into something that resembles the flashes then I think that too is related to electrical phenomena. Does anyone concur with this?